AN INQUIRY 


INTO THE 
CHARACTER AND CONDITION 


OF OUR 
CHILD REIN: 
AND THEIR CLAIM TO A PARTICIPATION IN HE 
PRIVILEGES AND BLESSINGS 
OF THE 


REDEEMER’S KINGDOM ON EARTH, 


EXAMINED AND ESTABLISHED. 


i ALSO SOME REMARKS ON THE MODE OF 
\ 


ADMINISTERING THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM. 


BY JOHN HERSEY. 


RALEIGH: 


PRINTED BY THOS. J. LEMAY. 


1839. 


INTRODUCTION. 


—— 8 @ Gtive= 


It is not only a duty which devolves on parents universally, to de- 
fend and protect their offspring from violence and injury; but a prin- 
ciple of unsullied affection indelibly inscribed on every parent’s heart, 
by the Author of our existence, renders the prosperity and honor of 
their children more dear to them than every other object on earth. 

Therefore, while we plead the cause of innocence, of those who 
are unable to defend themselves; of that interesting part of the hu- 
man family who are entwined around the parents’ hearts by the 
strongest, purest ties connected with our fallen nature, we must have 
the fervent prayers of every parent, and all good people for our suc- 

cess. 
' In pursuing this interesting and important inquiry, we must rise 
above the dark smoke of sectarian prejudice which has so long ob- 
scured some of the fairest features of Christ’s Church, and embitter- 
ed the pure waters of eternal life. |Our Divine Master says, ‘‘ by 
this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one ano- 
fiery: 

A want of brotherly love among professing christians, which ne- 
cessarily inspires respect, confidence and harmony, has injured the 
Redeemer’s cause on earth more than all the infidels and open ene- 
mies of the cross that have ever lived. . 

It should be the object of every servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
in all he says or does, to promote harmony and good will among 
men, especially among professors of religion. 

My desire and sincere prayer is, that the following remarks may 
have noother tendency. 


AN INQUIRY 


INTO THE 
CHARACTER AND CONDITION 


OF OUR 


CHILDREN. 


Our children have rights and privileges or they have none; if they 
_have none, we should weep in silent anguish over their condition; 
but if a goodand merciful God has granted blessings and privileges 
tothem, parents should rejoice for the consolation, and not be re- 
gardless of the benefits extended to their offspring. 

Almighty God is immutable in his character, and perfect in all 
his ‘attributes; consequently, in all his works, there must be consis- 
tency, uniformity, and harmony; nor is it possible that any thing 
incongruous or deranged, in the slightest degree, could ever pro- 
ceed from hishand. It is true, the soul of man is all in ruins; but 
this is not God’s work—** an enemy hath done this.”” ‘The soul 
was originally as perfect ar any other part of creation; yea, it was 
made in God’s own image, butsin has thrown it into universal con- 
fusion and disorder. 

There is a uniform and beautiful agreement and harmony in the 
works of creation; so must there be in the work of redemption, if 
both are by the same Author. 

The great Creator has stamped on every thingin the animal and 
vegetable kingdoms, a definite character and complexion, and by an 
immutable law of nature, he has wisely ordered that every thing 
shall propagate its own species; hence, the same seed uniformly 
produces the same description of plants. In the animal kingdom, 
composed of almost an infinite variety, the same universal law ob- 
tains. ‘The offspring invariably bear the same complexion, and in- 
herit the peculiarities of their parents’ character. In every instance 
where the different species have mingled, Almighty God has stamp- 
ed the act with: his disapprobation, and decreed that such disorder 
shall proceed no further; they uniformly, in all such cases, cease to 
propagate. : 

It never was the design of our Creator, that discord should exist 
between the parents and children; they csnnot differ in character 
or complexion; whenever this is the case, we may with propriety 
say, that ‘hese are not thy works, Parent of good. 

It therefore necessarily follows, that if parents and their children 
are to he separated, one in, and the other outof Christ’s kingdom 
on earth, the plan is not, it cannot be from Heaven, but must be the 
result of human invention. A kingdom, or a family, one half civi- 
lized, and the other half savages, will not bear the touch of reason. 


5 


God never designed that such an unhappy scism should exist in his 
kingdom or houses, either in heaven or in earth. 

Let us now enquire, what is the character and condition of man? 
The inspired writer informs us, that God created man in his own 
image; consequently, in every respect perfect: in this holy, happy, 
and honorable state, his Maker gave him a law to regulate his ac- 
tions, and to test hisintegrity. While Adam continued to observe 
this law, he remained an honorable subject of the Great King’s 
earthly dominions; but our first parents transgressed that law, and 
thereby lost not only the image, but the knowledge of their Creator; 
hence they were banished from the kingdom of light and honor in 
which they were created, into a kingdom of darkness and disgrace: 
they were alienated from God and his government, and became sub- 
ject to Satan, and subjects of the kingdomof darkness. 

In his fallen, degraded, alienated condition, Adam begat a son 
in his own likeness. By an undeviating law of nature, children 
must resemble their parents. Hence the whole human family were 
involved in the consequences of our first parents’ transgression; 
darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the 
people. In this fatal tragedy, there was no line of discrimination 
drawn between the parents and their children. One was necessarily 
involved in the consequences of the other’s transgressions; therefore, 
the complexion of each must be the same. 

The language of inspiration on this subject is, ‘Therefore, as 
by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
tion.”” Rom. v. 18. ‘That at that time ye were without Christ, be- 
ing aliens from the Commonwealth of Isreal, and strangers from 
the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the 
world.”” Enphes. ii. 12. ‘*BeholdI was shapen in- iniquity; and in 
sin did my mother conceive me.”’ Ps, li. 5. 

On the subject of original sin, great caution must be observed that 
we do not fallinto unrighteous or unreasonable errors, or extremes. 
Some have already charged the children with the guilt of their first 
parents’ sin; while others assert, that children are born into the 
world in an uncontaminated state, as pure and spotless as Adam was 
originally. These are the two opposite extremes, and both wide of 
the truth. But while our children are perfectly free from the guilt 
of Adam’s sin, they are necessarily implicated in the painful, melan- 
choly consequences, flowing from his transgression. ‘To illustrate 
the case, suppose a distinguished citizen of these United States com- 
mits a high crime, for which his property is confiscated, and he is 
banished into a desolate island—there he is involved in poverty, ex- 
ile and degradation, as a just recompense for his crimes: he is no 
Jongera citizen orsubject of this country. In this condtion he be- 
gets children: they are not, they cannot be chargeable with, or guilty 
of their father’s iniquity; yet they are necessarily implicated: they 
are also involved in poverty and exile: they are aliens, and of course 
degraded. ‘They are no more citizens of the United States than their 


6 


guilty father: they bear his complexion, and can rise no higher than 
his level. 

Adam transgressed, and was banished from the presence and 
kingdom of his creator: he became an alien, an exile; all his original 
wealth and glory were confiscated: he became ignorant and poor, 
and his character degraded: he was clothed with want, and shame 
and misery. Hence all his descendants necessarily bear the 
same character and complexion; all are implicated in, and affected by 
his fall. 

Almighty God in his great goodness, has devised a plan, by which 
fallen man may be restored tw his presence and favor again. He 
has erected a kingdom on earth for the reception and comfort ot 
poor degraded, exiled, alienated man. ‘The important question un- 
der consideration is, Have our children a legitimate claim to a place 
in this kingdom, or not? 

Suppose a negociation were entered into, making provision for the 
return of the exiled citizen, on condition that his children should not 
accompany him to the United States, but remain in banishment, at 
least until they were capable of deciding for themselves, whether it 
were a privilege to be citizens or subjects of this free and happy 
country, or not; would their father accept such terms? Would he 
voluntarily leave his exiled, alienated, impoverished offspring in that 
island, and return himself to his native landagain? Notso. How- 
ever debased his character might be, he would say, ‘“‘ My children 
cannot be separated from their father: they are more dear to me than 
all the honors of my native country. If they cannot return with 
me, I will spend my days in exile with them.” 

Is it reasonable to suppose that a merciful and righteous God would 
offer, or impose on poor exiled, alienated man, terms which he 
could not honorably accept—which he could not receive without vio- 
lating the law of nature, established and confirmed by God himself, 
and extended to all the works of his Almighty hand? Nor is this all. 
Poor man, in submitting to such conditions, would have to do vio- 
lence to the best and most exalted feelings of his nature. 

It will only be necessary to examine the plan of salvation, as re- 
Vealed in God’s word, to discover clearly that He has not imposed 
unreasonable or inconsistent terms on man, 

Almighty God, in boundless merey and condescension, made a 
covenant with Abraham, and received him formally into his kingdom 
on earth. ‘This distinguished patriarch was ninety-nine years old 
when he was taken into covenant relation with his Maker; and be- 
ing an alien, a foreigner, a heathen, as were all mankind, it became 
necessary to place some discriminatitg mark or seal upon him, that 
he might thereby be distinguished from the subjects of the kingdom > 
of darkness. ‘This seal was circumcision, which no doubt pointed 
emblematically to the bloody scene which was subsequently transact- 
ed‘ on Calvary. 


Was Abraham received into God’s kingdom on earth, and hia lit- 


7 


tle ones left out? Was he elevated from heathen degradation, and 
taken into covenant relation with the King of Heaven, and his chil- 
dren excluded? Was the universal law of nature departed from in 
this transaction, and a separation line drawn between parents and chil- 
dren? Notso. It was the work of God, and must bear the mark 
of his divine hand. Abraham’s children were received with their 
father into God’s kingdom on earth, and their heathen, or alienated 
character and condition wiped away on the eighth day. 

Those, however, who are willing to dispense with all privileges 
and blessings for their children, under ihe milder and brighter rays 
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, believe that the legal dispensation has 
been completely abolished, and should never be named again by 
christians—that it only referred to temporal blessings, promised ex- 
clusively to the Jews. If God’s word and reason confirm this idea, 
then must it be correct. 

What is the language of inspiration?. Almighty God speaks to 
Abraham, and says, ‘‘As for me, behold my covenant is with thee, 
and thou shalt be a father of many nations. And I will bless them 
that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall 
all the families of the earth be blessed.’’ Gen. xii. 3, xvii. 4. 

In reference to this important transaction, Paul says, ‘‘ Know 
ye, therefore, that they which are of faith, the same are the children 
of Abraham. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us; for it is written, eursed is every one that 
hangeth on airee; that the blessing of Abraham might come on 
the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the pro- 
mise of the spirit through faith. And if ye be Christ’s, then are 
ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.’’ Gal. ii. 
7, 13, 14, 29. In the 8th verse, he is very pointed, and says, ‘‘The 
scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall 
all nations be blessed. ”’ 

Surely Paul did not consider the covenant made with Abraham, 
as relating only to temporal blessings, and extending no further than 
the land of Judea, and the Jewish nation. But says the objector, 
‘We are not now under the law, but under grace: the former dis- 
pensation has passed away forever.’? Hence Paul says, ‘In that 
he saith a new convenant, he hath made the first old. Now that 
which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.’’ Heb. 
vill. 13. 

Let reason decide the case. Within a few years past, the people 
of North Caro!ina have changed their constitution; nor will any one 
of intelligence say they are now under the old constitution, that has 
been done away; yet every individual of common sense in the State, 
knows that every article and clause in the old constitution, which has 
not been abrogated or superseded by the new, remains permanently 
the law of the land. The good people of these United States, more 
than half a century ago, threw off the yoke of Great Britain. They 


8 
are not now, nor have they been, under the laws or the constitution 
of that kingdom since the declaration of their independence; yet 
in many instances, the old code of England is referred to, and made 
the rule of decision in our courts of judicature. 

Are the laws and institutions of man tobe more permanent than 
the institutions and laws of God? Not so. In the King of Israel 
there never has been, nor will there ever be, any change. The same 
God who gave laws to the Israelites, sways his sceptre in the gospel 
kingdom. In reality, the kingdoms are but one. ‘The former dis- 
pensation was necessarily obscured by clouds and shadows, which 
were dispelled when the sun of righteousness arose to view. 

Literally, when the sun appears above the eastern horizon, it pro- 
duces an important, beautiful and interesting change on the face of 
nature; yet there is not one leaf or spire of grass varied in the slight- 
est degree from what it was when shrouded in midnight gloom. Light 
has produced this revolution. ‘To us it is a 1eal change, yet in reali- 
ty it is no change atall. So in the kingdom of grace. Light exhib- 
its every part of the edifice in all its native perfection and beauty; 
yet God is not changed, nor any part of his work destroyed. 

Without the old covenant, or the old testament, the new would be 
a broken fragment, which could not be systematized or understood by 
the most ingenious and learned divine on earth. It may therefore be 
said, with the utmost propriety, that every thing in the old covenant 
or former constitution, which has not been abrogated or superseded in 
the new—the gospel of Jesus Christ, must stand firm and unshaken. 
Children were entitled to a place in the former kingdom by the highest 
authority. ‘There is not one sentence or clause in the new testament, 
which disfranchises or deprives them of that privilege. Therefore, 
their claim on this ground is not only honorable and just, but it is in- 
controvertible. 

The Mosaic or legal dispensation is called a shadow of the gospel 
kingdom. Heb. x. 1. There must be a perfect agreement between 
the shadow and the substance. We respectfully invite those who de- 
ny children a place in Christ’s kingdom on earth, to compare the 
shadow and the substance—the old and the new dispensations, and 
account for the chasm that is made by excluding children from the 


latter. ‘I'o suppose the existence of a shadow, without any substance’ 


connected with it, is a plain contradiction—an absurdity. Therefore, 
it could not proceed from the divine hand—it must be the work of 
poor erring, bungling man. Reason loudly declares, that children 
cannot be excluded from the fold of Christ. 

If, however, the gospel of Jesus Christ does not give our children 
an honourable and satisfactory title to those privileges, we must sub- 
mit, however painful to our feelings, to see them cut off. 

Let us, therefore, appeal to the King himself. ‘+ Master, as our 
children have literally and innocently suffered by the fall, or the 
transgression of our first parents, and were with them alienated and 
banished from thy presence; and as they have heretofore been recog- 


. 3 


A. ay ®t 


9 


nized as legitimate and honourable subjects of thy kingdom under the 
cold, dark dispensation of the law, are they to have no part, or lot, or 
place in thy gospel kingdom?”’ % : 

What is the King’s reply to this interesting query made by every 
affectionate parent? Hear it, and rejoice for the consolation. He 
says, ‘* Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, 
for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whoso- 
ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall 
not enter therein.”’ 

This important decision has been recorded by three of the Evan- 
gelists, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word 
should be established. 

It is an incontrovertible truth, that children, together with their 
parents, are in a state of banishment, or alienation from God; conse- 
quently, they are not in his kingdom on earth. That Christ should 
direct them to be brought to him, but not into his kingdom, is an idea 
too absurd even for intelligent prejudice to entertain. 

The question naturally arises, how are our children to be brought 
to Christ? It must be either by circumcision or by baptism; there are 
no other ordinances appointed for this purpose. 

Under the law, they placed the discriminating mark of cireumcis- 
ion upon God’s people and children; but under the economy of grace, 
baptism consututes a line of discrimination between the household of 
God, and those who are strangers and foreigners; between the sub- 
jects of Christ’s kingdom and those who naturally belong to the 
kingdom of darkness. St. Paul says, Col. i, 13, ‘* Who hath deliv- 
ered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the 
kingdom of his dear Son.’’ God’s people always have been, and must 
ever be distingnished from others—see Exodus xii. 12, 13. Ezek. 
iss 0,6.  Rom>iv, Tl v2 Cor. 1y22. Ephes, I. 33o7 2 Dime i. 
19. And are we willing to see our children rove like the savage, or 
run like the wild animals of the forest, bearing no mark of God’s 
people or family? 

As circumcision was the mark, or seal of God’s people under the 
law, and that dispensation was a shadow of the gospel—baptism must 
be the substance of circumcision, or it will presenta shadow without 
a substance; this would cast a shade of deformity over the work of 
redemption, which cannot exist if God is its author. ‘Therefore, if 


children are to be brought to Christ, they must be baptized. Hence 


in our Divine Master’s commission to his disciples, he commands 
them to “ go and teach all nations, baptizing them,” &c. Children 
form a large and important part of all nations, consequently they 
must be baptized. % 

Let us enquire particularly how this commission‘is to be executed? 
‘© Go and teach them that I am their Redeemer, the Holy One of [s- 
rael, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, 
Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day and forever. ‘Teach them 
that by nature they are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 


2 


id 


strangers from the covenant of promise. Teach or inform them that 
1 have established a kingdom on earth, which is now open and ready 
for their reception; that they are now freely and affectionately invited 
to enter in, and partake’ of its privileges and blessings.” 

But if children are not to be received and associated together with 
their parents as subjects of this kingdom, will it not present difficul- 
ties, inconsistéricies, and contradictions? ‘To instance: The intelli- 
gent and reflecting part of all nations will naturally enquire, ‘Is Je- 
sus Christ the same yesterday, to-day and forever? Is he the same 
King who ruled over the Israelites and established his covenant with 
them, and received their little children on the eighth day into his king- 
dom, and thus elevated them to bear the same-character, and enjoy 
the same privileges with their parents; and does he now exclude our 
little ones from his earthly fold altogether? If we enter into his king- 
dom on earth, must we leave our children among the heathens still? 
Does he regard our offspring less than he did the children and de- 
scendants of Abraham? If so, he must have changed; he is not the 
same he once was. Under the gospel, he must be more unkind than 
he was under the law. Please to explain this difficulty? : 

Again: you teach us to pray—*‘ Let thy will be done on earth as 
it is done in heaven.’’ Do not little children compose part of God’s 
people in heaven? If you refuse to receive them into Christ’s king-_ 
dom below, how can his will be done.on earth, as itis done in hea- 
ven? You also teach us that we must be converted and become as 
little children, or we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Has 
Christ given us a model, a pattern which must be rejected, and the 
imitation only received? 

Once more. If Jesus Christ has established a kingdom on earth, 
in which there is to be no children, it will resemble no good kingdom 
on earth or in heaven: therefore, the term kingdom is altogether in- 
applicable. 

The King immortal, invisible, only wise God, never directed his 
disciples and ministers to teach the nations doctrines, which were, 
in their very nature, inconsistent and contradictory: therefore, chil- 
dren must be received into Christ’s kingdom on earth; and if they are 
received, they must be baptized. ry ‘ 

Let us, however, examine how the apostles executed their com- 
mission. ‘Ihe first gospel sermon preached by them after they re- 
ceived full authority from God, was on the day of pentecost; did Pe- 
ter on that occasion teach the people that there was now to be a sep- 
arating line drawn between parents and their children? Hear his 
own words—‘* Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name 
of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
God shall call. Acts ii, 38, 39, . 

In the covenant made with their father Abraham, the Almighty had 
promised to be a God to him and his seed after him—< and in thee 


| 


shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’’ Hence Paul says, 
*« Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision 
for the truth of God to eonfirm the promises made unto the fathers; 
and that the gentiles might glorify God forhis mercy. Rom. xy. 8. 

The apostles did not teach ineonsistencies—they did not separate 
parents and their children. ‘The Jewish parents had always been ac- 
customed to dedicate their children to the Lord under the law, and 
under the new covenant they may still do the same. 

Another argument to prove that the apostles did not * teach the na- 
tions’’ that parents and their children were to be separated under the 
gospel, may be drawn from the circumstance of their baptizing en- 
tire households. Children are found in almost every family or house- 
hould; therefore, if they are not to be baptized, the inspired writers 
opened a very wide door for colltston and diffieulty, when all are to 
be of one heart and ene mind; where there should be no discordant 
sound heard. We respectfully ask those who are opposed to infant 
baptism, to say how many households they have ever known bap- 
tized where there were certainly no children? 

Let us now notiee a ease, which has frequently occurred in mod- 
ern times, and no doubt but it often happened in the days of the apos- 
tles, since all to whom they preached the gospel (except the Jews) 
were heathens—were gentiles. Suppose in one of those heathen fam- 
ilies, the wife embraces religion, and is happily converted to God, and 
baptized; she is now a christian, but her husband is still a heathen; 
what must be done with the children? Must they continue to be 
classed with the heathen father, or may they be identified with their 
christian mother? If they must remain with their father, then let 
them alone; but if they may be honoured and elevated and classed 
with their christian mother, something must be done for them—some 
legal process is indispensably necessary to effect that change—that 
process is baptism. 

Without divine authority or instruction in this case, great difficul- 
ty would ensue. ‘The holy scriptures, which are givento us for a 
lamp to our feet, and a lantern to our path, has not left us in the dark 
in this intricate and perplexing dilemma. 

The apostle to the gentiles says: ‘* For the unbelieving husband is 
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
husband; else were your children unclean; (i. e. heathens,) but now 
are they holy.”’ 1 Cor. vii. 14. This passage is so applicable, and so 
much in point, that it requires no comment. ‘Therefore, if only the 
mother has become interested in the covenant of grace, and received ° 
into the Redeemer’s kingdom on earth by baptism, her children may 
also be included; they may be baptized, and with their mother have 
their heathen name and character washed away, (the only kind of sin 
which water can wash away,) they are now no more “ strangers and 
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household 
of God.” If the father still remains a heathen, it shall be by his own 
voluntary choice; no part of the blame ean be charged to a merciful 


12 


God, who has ‘done all things well,’”’ for us and for our children. 

It may now be necessary to answer some queries frequently made 
by those who object to infant baptism, and meet their objections. 

First. ‘‘ What benefit can children derive from baptism? What 
good can it do them?’ We answer by asking, is it any advantage or 
benefit to your children that they are not slaves or savages? Does it 
afford you no consolation to know that your children, even in in- 
fancy, are recognized as the subjects of a free and happy govern- 
ment, and carefully protected by its wholesome laws? And can you 
see no benefit resulting to your children from the pleasing circum- 
stance that they are elevated with their parents into the Redeemer’s 
kingdom on earth? 

Is it a matter of no concern or importance to bear tha mark of Je- 
hovah’s people, and to know that his everlasting arms of love and 
mercy are thrown around your little ones? 

Is there a christian parent on earth who would not rejoice to have 
their children taken into covenant relation with their Maker, and to 
know that they were no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-_ 
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God? Allow me 
respectfully to ask, can your unbaptized children claim those distin- 


uished privileges? Every intelligent christian must answer in the — 
£ 8 g \e 


negative. Fae a 


, 


It has been already proven, that all children are born in an aliena- — 
ted state. Aliens are legally dead; so must our children be; hence 
the word of God says—‘*‘ For as in Adam all die,’’ &c. 1 Cor. xv. 
22. Now, whatever character children originally bear, they must 
retain, until itis changed by some legal process; this process must be 
baptism, which legally introduces our children into Christ’s kingdom 
on earth; consequently, they are in that act legally brought to life; 
so that baptism may be called a new birth. 

Some in the present day have mistaken the change in our condi- 
tion effected by baptism, for a spiritual change, than which nothing 
can be more absurd. ‘* That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: and 
that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.’? ‘* Except a man be born 
of water, and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God.’ Water changes our relative condition, and elevates our char- 
acter: the spirit renews, purifies and elevates the immortal part. 

To place the benefit resulting from infant baptism in a more con- 
spicuous and interesting light, let us suppose the case of an enslaved 
mother and her infant child; the child is as much a slave as its moth- 
er; consequently dead—dead to the law; were you to sell the child 
from its mother’s arms, the law would neither condemn nor punish 
you for the decd. ‘. 

But let the master emancipate the child, the moment the clerk 
makes the record, the child is brought to life; it that becomes as free 
as the master’s child; -yet the infant may be asleep; it is completely 
unconscious of the transaction. 


But the mother’s heart can now leap for joy—my child is free— 


13 


ig cannot be sold now from my arms. ‘The law now secures the 
rights of my child, and protects it. : 

‘This rational and scriptural view of the subject, would correct ma 
ny erroneous opinions respecting infant baptism, and influence every 
feeling parent to say—‘‘ my children shall be brought to Christ; they 
shall be baptized—they shall no longer remain legally dead, and ali- 
enated from their heavenly Father’s arms of covenant, love and mer- 
eye? 

Some believe from this view of the subject, that we exclude un- 
baptized children from heaven; not so. Baptism relates to, and 
changes the condition only, and not the heart. The slave child will | 
be taken to heaven as certainly as the child of the most pious divine 
on earth; yet there is a very wide difference in the condition and 
privileges of the two in this world. Because a slave child will be 
taken to heaven, should I therefore be as willing to see my child a 
slave, as a free born citizen of this country? 

Until our children are baptized they are legally dead, and in a 
state of heathen degradation. Yet the spiritual conditon of the 
slave is the same in God’s sight as the master’s child. 

- . Second/y. Another enquiry is frequently made respecting infant 

_ baptism. How do you know that you were baptized in infancy?— 

_ Allow me here to relate the substance of aconversation which passed 
between a friend of mine and his neighbor. 

Neighbor. How do you know that you have been baptized? 

Friend. Do you think itimpossible for us to know what occurred 
in infancy—say when we were a week old? 

VN. Yes, utterly impossible; the idea is absurd! 

F. I think, then, that St. Paul was at least precipitate, and agree- 
able to your views, he has involved himself in some difficulty; he un- 
equivocally declares that he was circumcised the eighth day. How 
did he know that fact? His neighbor was silent. My friend replied — 
for him—‘‘I presume if he wanted information on that subject, his 
Jewish parents gave it to him. Now, if I cannot confide in the ve- 
racity of my Christian parents, respecting my baptism, I shall bury 
their honor in the dust, and grossly violate the fifth commandment, 
and render myself a sinner inthe sight of God.”’ 

Thirdly. An insuperable objection is made to infant baptism, by 
some, because they believe the word of God requires something asa 
pre-requisite, which children are incompetent to perform, viz. Maith, 
This objection is founded on what is said, Acts viii, 13, 17, and 
xviii. 8; but particularly Mark xvi. 16, ‘‘ He that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved; buthe that believeth not shall be damned.”’ 
If this text debars children from the ordinance of baptism, because 
they cannot believe, it must also exclude them from the kingdom of © 
heaven—for they cannot believe, therefore they must be damned.—. 

. Such an idea would shock the feelings of a savage. (The mistake 
which our objectors have made in the application of this text, is in 


14 


departing froma correct mode of reasoning; children are not em- 
braced in the premises, therefore they should not be included im the 
conclusion, If they are exeluded from one, they must be from the 
other, or all our arguments will terminate in error and confusion. 

The objector further contends, that because the word believeth 
precedes the term baptize, the subjects must believe before they can 
be legally baptised. ‘The order of words does not invariably deter- 
mine the order of things. It is said ‘‘ John did baptize in the wil- 
derness, and preach the baptism of repentance.” Marki.4. A- 
greeable to the above mode of reasoning, John must have baptized 
before he preached—which no one can believe. 

There was alaw in Virginia, under the old constitution which 
restricted all but freeholders from voting. Was that law written in 
the style and phraseology of this passage of seripture, it would 
read—‘* He that votes and is a freeholder, his vote shall be valid.””"— 
Would there be any one in the State so simple as to contend, that 
because the word vole preceeded the term freeholder, a man must 
first vote, and then purchase a farm to legalize his vote? ‘he case is 
plain. A man has been a freeholder all his life, and yet he votes and — 
is a freeholder. ‘The individual who has been baptised in infancy— 
when he believes, it may be correctly said in the language of the a- 
bove text—‘he believeth and is baptized.” The word of God ra- 
tionally understood, will not sustain this objection to our children, 
threfore it must fall to the ground. 

Fourthly. They ought not to be brought to Christ in the ordi- 
nance of baptism, because baptism is the answer of a good conscience. 
Children cannot enjoy the answer of a good conscience for what was 
done to them by their okie im infancy; therefore they should not 
be baptized.’’ 

By this parity of reasoning every foreigner who voluntarily re- 
nounces his own country—adopts this, and beeomes an American 
citizen, must be more respected, and confided in above the individu- 
al who happened to be born in the United States—he had no hand, 
or choice in regulating his own destiny, while the naturalized for- 
eigner enjoys the answer of a good conscience—he voluntarily re- 
nounced his native country and chose this for his permanent home. 
Yet the poor man who happened by fate’s stern decree to be born 
on Columbia’s soil, neither feels nor acknowledges his inferiority; but 
rationally and honestly claims a superiority over the naturalized stran- 
ger. Davidlooked down with contempt on the uncircumcised Phi- 
listian; although David himself was no doubt ctrewmcised the eighth 
day, which he esteemed a privilege that placed him above the heath- 
en Goliah. Wil! that minister have the answer of a good conscience, 
for teaching parents that their little ones were not to be received into 
Christ’s kingdom on earth, and recognized together with their pa- 
rents as the people of God, because there was no express command 
to baptize them, when the inferential authority was as strong as that 
C. was born of his mother, though there was not a living witness on 


15 
earth of the cireumstance; and while he daily received females te 
the Lord’s table without any express command for doing so? 

Will those parents have the answer of a good conscience for leay- 
ing their children like the savage of the forest, without any mark of 
God or his people upon them? For suffering them to run like the 
wild ass’s colt ina christian land? 

Fifthiy. Wf children are baptized, itis said that they should par- 
take of all the privileges of the Lord’s house—they should approach 
their Father’s table. ‘This they are incapable of; therefore, they 
should not be baptized. 

I answer, the child isan American citizen, and can claim the pro- 

tection of the law with as much propriety as any other citizen of the 
country. ‘The culprit would be executed as soon for murdering the 
child as the parent; yet children do not enjoy the entire privilege of the 
Jaw, until they pass their minority. So in Christ’s kingdom, as soon 
as the subjects are regenerated, converted, or born again, be that when 
it may, they can then claim and enjoy all the blessings of the church 
militant. ‘They are then received into closer connection with the 
king. They can then approach their Father’s table, and truly say, 
“ Our fellowship is with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.” 
_ Ifour Divine Redeemer has called the gospel dispensation a king- 
‘dom, and there is not a corresponding resemblance between it and 
well-regulated earthly kingdoms, then is the term not applicable? The 
Lord Jesus does not make comparisons where there is no resem- 
blance. He always speaks to the comprehension of frail mortals, that 
they may be edified and not bewildered. 

Sizthly. Those who have been baptized in infancy, it is confi- 
dently said, are no better than ethers; therefore, they ought not to be 
baptized. 

This objection may be satisfactorily answered, by asking, Are 
there no desperate characters in these United States? 

Consult the annals of the day—examine your penitentiaries and 
jails, and you will find a black catalogue of natural born Americans, 
as well as naturalized foreigners, that would disgrace the name 
of savage. But does this prove that it is not a privilege to be an A- 

erican citizen? Surely not. The King himself gives us to under- 
stand, that there will continue to be both good and evil in his earthly 
kingdom. He says, “As therefore the tares are gathered and burn- 
ed in the fire; so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of 
Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his king- 
dom all that offends, and them which do iniquity.” Again, ‘* The 
kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was east into the sea, and 
~ gathered of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore, 
and sat down and gathered the good into vessels, and cast the bad 
- away.’’ Math. xii. 40, 41, 47, 48. 

After those unequivocal declarations from such high authority, to 
refuse our children a place in their Redeemer’s kingdom on earth, 
and a name among their fathers, because they might at some future 


16 


period become wicked, has at least the appearance of being wise a- 
bove what is written. ‘ : 

In the conclusion of the old testament, we have the following inter- 
esting promise: ‘* Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before 
the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and he shall 
turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the 
children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”’ 
Mal. iv. 5, 6. 

This promise refers immediately to the gospel day, when the en- 
lightened and purified hearts of the parents will turn with tender so- 
licitude to their children. ‘They will no longer suffer them careless- 
ly to run like the wild ass’s colt; nor will they be willing any longer 
to name them as they do their domestic animals. ‘They will recog- 
nize and receive the Holy One of Israel as their merciful sovereign, - 
whose kingdom shell not be diverse from all other kingdoms in heav- 
en or on earth. In every well-regulated kingdom, there are and 
must be children; and the affectionate parent should rejoice to hear 
our king say, ‘‘ Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.” 

We respectfully ask those who deny their children the right ofbap- 
tism, consequently, any part or lot in their Redeemer’s kingdom on 
earth, to say what is the character and condition of their children? 
Are they christians? No—they have no legal claim to that charac- 
ter. Are they Jews? No—they have not been circumcised, and 
thereby separated from the Gentile world. Are they then Gentiles, 
or Heathens, or Aliens; or have they no name on earth, or religious 
identity of character among the sons of men? In what a strange and 
unfortunate dilemma are those placed, who deny infant baptism! 

If our children have never been dedieated to the Lord*by any legal 
process; if they are still ‘‘ aliens from ihe commonwealth of Israel, 
and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and 
without God in the world,”? Ephes. 11. 12, how can we consistently 
ask God to throw his gracious arms of mercy around them? 

Suppose a citizen of France were to become a subject of Great Brit- 
ain, and immediately inform the King of England what he had done, 
declaring that he had no confidence in the French government. He 
then earnestly and pressingly raquests his Brittannic Majesty to ex- 
tend protection to his little children. Would not the king reply, 
‘* Certainly I will. Parents and children are each the objects of my 
eare. In the kingdom where I rule, parents and children are equally 
secure, and their respective rights and privileges sacredly guaranteed 
to each of them. Pardon me—your majesty does not fully compre- 
~hend the nature of my request—my children are still in France. It 
would have been tyrannical and cruel to have bound and brought 
them into your kingdom, without their own consent! 

_ If France were his Britannic Magesty’s legitimate province, but 
m astate of rebellion, having openly revolted from their sovereign’s 
authority, but still supported by their king’s bounty, the simile would 


17 : 
be more perfect, but the man’s conduct would be equally unwise and 
absurd. 

Children were the first Martyrs for the Lord Justis Christ, (Math. 
il. 16;) and will he in return, contrary to his own character, and thé 
laws which he has established for the governmerit of universal na- 
ture, and in opposition to his former dealings with the Jews, ex- 
clude them from the privileges and blessings of his kingdom onearth? 

Reason, and righteousness, and parental affection, and the word of 
God—all conspire with one accordto say, *“‘No—they shall not be 
excluded or cast off.” The King himself proclaims aloud, ‘Suffer 
them to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king- 
dom of God.” 


REMARKS ON THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING THE ORDINANCF: 
OF BAPTISM. 

Having clearly established our children’s claim to a participation 
in the privileges and blessings of the Redeemer’s kingdom on earth, 
we now proceed to offer a few thoughts on the mode of administering 
the ordinance of baptism, which alone can give them a legal title to 
those benefits. 

Should a master command his servant to execute a piece of work, 
without specifying minutely how it was to be performed, and then ob- 
ject to the manner of its execution, and chastise his servant because he 
had not strictly conformed to a definite rule which he had never plain- 
ly laid down, it would be unjust and cruel. 

God is infinitely just and merciful, and will never demand of his 
servants any thing unreasonable. He will not reap where he has 


_ not sowed, or gather where he has not strewed. Therefore, he will 


not hold them accountable—condemn and punish them for not admin- 
istering the ordinance of baptism agreeably to a definite rule which 
he has never specifically marked down for our observance. 

One, however, peremptorily declares that this is not the fact, and 
positively asserts that the Greek word bap/izo plainly and simply means 
to immerse and nothing else; he appeals to wise and learned men to 
prove his assertion. Another, as positively objects to this declaration, 
and refers to as many, or more authors and divines, equally as wise 
and learned and pious, who fearlessly declare that the Greek word 
does not exclusively mean immersion, any more than the word camel 
exclusively means an Asiatic animal. Now when two witnesses of 
equal standing in society, give testimony directly opposite to each 
other, both cannot be received; neither can one be taken anid the oth- 
er rejected; but both must be set aside: therefore, from the learned we 
can prove nothing; their testimony conflicts—both must be rejected. 
_ Another, is astonished at the stupidity of men, and unequivocally 
declares ‘ that it requires neither wisdom nor learning to understand 
this subject—the command is plain—it cannot be misconstrued, nor 
can we be mistaken unless we close our eyes to the truth, and be- 
come perversely obstinate.”” God’s word expressly says, of Christ, 


_ “that he came straightway up out of the water; and of Philip and the 


18 

eunuch, that they both went down into, and came up out of the wa- 
ter; therefore, they must have been immersed, and nothing else can be 
baptism.’’ As well might I charge my kind friend with an intention 
to burn me to death, because he pressed me to come into the fire ! 
The master commands his servant to make a fire in the dining room; 
John obeys literally his orders, and burns the house down! When 
bis master calls him to aecount for such conduct, he defends and ex- 
eulpates himself by declaring, that he has done just what he was com- 
manded to do—his master said not one word about making the fire 
in the fire-place or on the hearth, but in the room—‘ your orders 
master, were faithfully and literally obeyed.” 

We must, therefore, be pardoned for passing by and rejecting the 
disputes and conflicting opinions of the learned respecting the im- 
port of the word, and also the positive declarations of those who im- 
merse Christ and the eunuch, because they went down into, and came 
up out of the water. 

Instances in the present day have occurred, where the subjects 
went down into, and came up out of the water, and were baptized, 
but not immersed. 

As there has been no definite mode prescribed in God’s word for 
administering the ordinance of baptism, it is reasonable to say that 
the mode cannot be essential to the validity of the ordinance.. My own 
opinion is decidedly, that sprinkling or pouring, is the most rational 
and scriptural mode of administering baptism; yet, as immersion is 
not forbijden in the sacred word, it may be innocently and correctly 
administered in that form to those who prefer it. God has said, * let 
every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.” 

It will at once be seen that we do not intend to denounce immer- 
sion; neither shall we use the bed of Procrustes, aud lop off all who 
are too long, or stretch all who are too short for our measure. ‘* With- 
out charity, [ am nothing.” ’ 

I hear the objector say, ‘‘ your liberality is incompatible with the 
word of God on this subject; therefore, it cannot be justified.’? Well, 
by that divine rule we will stand or fall. 

‘Does not God’s word expressly declare that there is—‘‘ One 
Lord, one faith, one baptism,’ Ephes. iv. 5; which proves that 
there can be only one mode of administering the ordinance, and as 
_ nearly all professing christians agree that immersion is a valid mode, 
no other can be correct or admissible.” 

__ On examination, this conclusion from the text cannot.be sustained. 

_ The apostle Paul is too, good. a logician to draw a parallel where there 
is no agreement. ‘The parallel is—God—Faith—Baptism. First— 
‘© one Lord.” In the God-head there are three persons, and, these 
three are one. Secondly—one Faith. Abraham was strong in faith. 
Christ said to Peter, ‘‘O ye of little faith;’’ yet faith is one and the 
same thing, differing in degrees. Thirdly—‘* One Baptism.” Sprink- 
ling—pouring and Immersing, and these three are one. 

This illustration of the text is rational and plain, and if it proves 
any thing in reference to water baptism, it is that there are at least 
three modes of administering that ordinance. 


19 

The gospel inculcates charity, and without it, St. Paul declares we 
are nothing. It would not, however, evince much charity, or ex- 
pansion of soul in me, were I to erect a house at an immense ex- 
pense, and then call my neighbors together and inform them that my 
house was in every respect a perfect house; therefore, every thing 
that differs from it in size or construction, is no house! 

In the consideration of this part of our subject, we will first exam- 
ine John’s Baptism; its nature and design. 

Whatever erring mortals may do, it is impossible that Almighty 
God should do, or direct any thing to be done, without having some 
wise and beneficial design in view. 

Were I busily engaged in making an extensive excavation in the 
earth, and you were to enquire, ‘‘what are you doing? What is 
your object in all this labor?”? and I were deliberately to reply— 
“J don’t know!—I have no object in view!’ You would at least 
suspect the sanity of my mind. Let us then enquire: First. 
What was the nature of John’s baptism? Was it of Jewish or 
christian character? John must have acted either in the Mosaic 
or christian dispensation; that he appeared and acted in the for- 
mer is evident from our Lord’s words, and also, from those of 
the Baptist himself—‘‘For Isay unto you, Among those that are 
born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Bap- 
tist, but he that is leastin the kingdom of God is greater than he.” 
Luke vii. 28. Mat. xi. 11. John said of himself--““He must in- 
crease, but I must decrease.”’ It necessarily follows, that John’s 
Baptism was a Jewish ceremony, therefore he could neither origi- 
nate, nor administer christian ordinances. 

Secondly. What was the design of his baptism? 

The Messiah had long been promised to the Jewish nation: they 
had been for many years expecting his appearance. Zachariah 
said of him, ‘And he shall go before him in the spirit and power 
of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the 
disobedient to the wisdom of the just: to make ready a people 
prepared for the Lord.”’ Luke i. 17. 

Johacame announcing the immediate appearance of their Sa- 
viour, the Holy one of [srael. It would be extremely indecorous 
and offensive to the character ofa distinguished guest, to receive 
him into our house when every thing was in disorder, and the family 
clothed in their ordinary and soiled garments; nor would it be less 
mortifying to the family to be foundin such a condition. es 

Hence we may rationally infer, that John’s baptism was an em- 
blem of that purity of heart—that spotless robe in which they should 


meet their King—the High and Lofty One who inhabited eternity, 


whose name is Holy. He came preaching in the wilderness, saying, 
“Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’’ The Jews 
heard the intelligence, and ran from every part of Judea to receive 
his baptism. Nordo we hear any controversy, or one word of in- 
quiry respecting this ordinance, from those people devoted to the 
custom of theirfathers, and bitterly opposed to any innovation on 
their laws or customs: His baptism, then must have been regarded 


20 
by the Jews as a purifying ceremony. Do any object to this hy- 
pothesis? Letthem show one more rational and scriptural. John 
received no members or prosolytes into either the Jewish or Chris- 
tian kingdom or church; therefore his baptism was not an initiatory 
ceremony; consequently, entirely different in its design from the 
Christian baptism. 

As John was a Jew, and all whom he baptized were Jews, and 
ashis was not the Christian baptism, but emblematic of the puri- 
fying ceremonies of the Jews, and calculated to soften their preju- 
dices, and prepare the way for the reception of the Christian bap- 
tism, it isnot reasonable to suppose that John could depart from 
the directions given by Moses for performing suchceremonies. It 
is, therefore, only necessary to know how the Jews were purified 
under the law, to ascertain how John baptised. 

For this information we must appeal to the old testament—‘And 
he shall sprinkle upon him, that is to be cleansed from the leprosy, 
seven times, and shall pronounce him clean.”’ Lev. xiv. 7. 

‘‘And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, take the Levites from 
among the children of Israel, and cleanse them; and thus shalt thou 
do unto them to cleause them; sprinkle water of purification upon 
them.’’ Numb. vill. 5, 6,7. ‘*Whosoever toucheth the dead body 
of any man that is dead, and purifyeth not himself, defileth the tab- 
ernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel; 
because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall 
be unclean——-his uncleanness is yetupon him;’’ Numb. xix. 13. 

The law of Moses abounds with directions for purifying persons 
and things; nor is there one instance where the unclean person or 
thing is commanded to be dipped or plunged into the purifying ele- 
ment. It is sometimes added, that the persons to be cleansed shall 
wash theirclothes, and bathe themselves in water; but when the pu- 
rifying element is applied by an administrator, it is uniformly done 
by sprinkling or pouring. 

The prophet, looking forward to the extension of God’s kingdom 
on earth, says ‘¢ So shall he sprinkle many nations.”’ Isaiah lii. 15. 
Again, there is a promise made to the dispersed Israelites, which 
must refer to the gospel days—-and to a period yet to come—* For 
I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all 
countries, and will bring you into your ownland. ‘Then will I sprin- 
kle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all yonr filthi- 
ness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you,” Ezek. xxxvi, 
24, 25. 

St. Paul, in speaking of those legal ceremonies; to shew the inti- 
mate connection between the Mosiac aud the christian dispensations, 
says, ‘‘For if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an 
heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifyeth to the purifying of the flesh, 
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal 
Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge our consciences 
fyom dead works, to serve the living God.” 

For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people, ac- 
cording to the law, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, with 


21 
water and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and 
all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament, which God 
hath injoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with 
blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.’’ Heb. 
ix. 13, 14, 19, 20, 21. 

Thus we have sufficient evidence from the old and the new testa- 
ments, to prove that sprinkling and pouring were the legitimate and 
only modes of purifying persons or things under the law of Moses, 
when applied by an administrator. Nor is it reasonable to suppose 
that those people who have ever been, and are still tenacious to an ex- 
treme of every particular injoined on them by their law, would have 
quietly submitted to see John depart from the custom of their fathers. 

It is asked, ‘* Why did John resort to Jordan and Enon, where 
there was much water, if he did not baptize by immersion?”’ He 
had his residence in the deserts and wilderness. Luke i. 80, iii. 2. 
He had no control over the synagogues or the temple; and the multi- 
tudes that flocked to him to receive the ceremony, could be better ac- 
commodated at the margin of a river, than in a house of worship.— 
The rural scene was best suited to the circumstances in which he 
was placed; and as the ceremony performed by him was typical of 
purity, he would naturally apply the most perfect emblem. ARun- 
ning or living water is purer than that which is stagnant. . Moses 
also had directed that living water should be used for purifying.— 
See Lev. xiv. 51, 52, and Numb. xix. 17, 18. Hence the sign was 
not only more perfect, and expressive of the thing signified, but it 
was in accordance with their own laws and customs—a circumstance 
of the utmost importance with every honest Jew. 

From John’s own words, we have satisfactory evidence that he 
did not baptize by immersion, Whatever others may do, inspired 
writers do not draw parallels where there is no analogy or agreement. 
He says, “I indeed baptize you with water; but he that cometh after 
me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear—he 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”” Every Chris- 
tian will acknowledge, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost must con- 
stitute the substance; and that water baptism is only the shadow. 

Now the substance and the shadow must correspond—it cannot be 
otherwise. The Holy Scriptures uniformly represent the Holy 
Ghost as being poured or shed forth; and unless John spoke unintelli- 
gibly and inconsistently, spINKLING and rovrING must be correct 
modes of administering the ordinance of baptism. Sprinkling and 
pouring may be considered as synonymous terms. We frequently 
say, when it rains very fast, ‘it pours down.”’ ‘The inspired wri- 
ters also use the same language—‘ For he maketh the small drops of 
water: they pour down.” Job xxxvi. 27. ed 

If John immersed the multitudes who flocked to him in the wil- 
derness, where there could be no convenient place to change their ap- 
parel, and those immense crowds of people, men and women, chang- 
ed their dress in the presence of each other; or if they were exposed 
together in their wet clothes, it was not only a departure from the reg- 
ulations of their fathers, but it was opposed tothe laws of respect and 


22 
decency observed by all the civilized nations, and a direct violation 
of the Apostle’s command—« Let all things be done devoutly and in 
order.”’ 

The baptism of our Saviour next demands our consideration. The 
following account is given of this interesting circumstance. ‘ Then 
cometh Jesus from Gallilee to Jordan, unto John to be baptized of 
him, but John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
thee, and comest thou to me? Jesus answered and said unto him, 
suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous- 
ness. ‘Then he suffered’ him. And when Jesus was baptized, he 
went up straightway out of the water; and lo the heavens were open- 
ed unto him, and he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove, and 
lighting upon him, and lo a voice from heaven saying, this is my be- 
loved son in whom I am well pleased.”’ Math. iii. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 

Observe, Christ does not say, I am about to set an example for my 
people to follow; neither does he say that he was about to institute, 
but to fulfil. Now as John could not legally administer any other 
than Jewish ceremonies, the righteousness which Christ fulfilled in 
his baptism, must have referred to some Jewish ritual. He had been 
circumcised at the pruper age; and dedicated in the temple subse- 
quently, by a legal offering. It was of vital importance that he should 
fulfil all the ceremonial as well as the moral law: his own declara- 
tion is——** Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the 
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I 
say unto you till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in 
no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” Math. v. 17, 18.— 
Indeed he could not fulfil part only, without being an imperfect Sa- 
viour. 

The law required that the priests should be washed with water, 
and annointed with oil previous to their entering into the priestly of- 
fice; they entered into the work of the ministry at the age of thirty. 
Numb. iv. 47. Our Redeemer bears eminently the character of 
High Priest; and Paul says-—‘* Wherefore in all things it behoved 
him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful 
and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.’ Heb. ii. 17. 
And Luke says--‘* Now when ail the people were baptized, it came to 
pass that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was 
opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove 
upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, thou art my 
beloved son: in thee I am well pleased. And Jesus’ himself began 
to be about thirty years of age.”’ Luke iii. 21, 22, 23. And in re- 
ference to the annointing enjoined on the priests in the law, Peter in 
his sermon to Cornelius remarks—-“* That word I say ye know, 
which was preached throughout all Judea, and began from Gallilee, 
after the baptism which John preached; how that God annointed Je- 
i of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Acts x. 

7, 38. JF 

Thus we clearly perceive the design of our Saviour’s baptism, and 
what act of righteousness it was which he fulfilled in attending to 
that ceremony. If indeed the ceremonial washing enjoined on the 


a 


23 
priests by the law, was not fulfilled by Christ in his baptism, we hava 
no account that he ever did fulfil it; consequently his own word must 
fail, and his work be imperfect. , 

It therefore necessarily follows, that this act of righteousness must 
have been fulfilled as Moses directed. ‘+ Andsthe Lord spake unto 
Moses, saying, take the Levites from among the children of Israel, 
and cleanse them; and thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, 
SPRINKLE water of purifying upon them.”’ If then Christ did fulfil 
the righteousness of the law perfectly, which we all believe—we all 
know he did——then was the water sprinkled on him in his baptism. 
If he was immersed, the law was not properly fulfilled—the conclu- 
sion is irresistible. 

Those who contend that immersion is the only proper mode of 
administering the ordinance of baptism, deny that Christ was induct- 
ed into the priesily office by John to fulfil the law, because the law 
limited the priesily office to the tribe of Levi. They should recollect, 
that the Levites were taken to fill the priestly office instead of the 
first born, See Numb. iii. 12, 13, and vili. 14 to 19. And when 
the darker dispensation was about to yield to the light of the gospel 
day, it was perfectly reasonable that the King Eternal who possessed 
fully the power, should change the priesthood or cause it to revert 
back to its original channel, and also the law regulating that office; to 
prove that this was done, the apostle to the Gentiles says—* For the 
priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also 
of the law.” For he of whom those things are spoken, pertaineth 
to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. For 
it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses 
spake nothing concerning the priesthood.’’ Heb. vii. 12, 13, 14. 

Paul here perfectly explains the difficulty; and to avoid collision 
with the Jewish authorities, God provided a special agent, virtually 
invested with every legal requisite to administer the ceremony to his 
son Jesus Christ, who is our Great High Priest. 

Those who object to Christ’s being inducted into the priestly of 
fice in his baptism, contend that itshould have been done at the door 
of the tabernacle, and that all the little ceremonies to which the Jew- 
ish priests were subjected in dress, &c. should have been attended to 
also. The tabernacle was taken down. Christ says—‘‘ I am the 
door’’—And even the smallest matters, the ‘ jots and tittles,’ who is 
prepared to say, they were not virtually fulfilled? See the variety 
and extent of his humiliation and sufferings. 

It is, however, further objected, ‘* that Christ could not have been 
constituted a priest after the order of Aaron, because it is said he was 
a priest after the order of Melchisedec.” He resembled Melchise- 
dec in the dignity and perpetuity of his office. ‘The Aaronic priests 
were made without an oath, and were subject to death: therefore, it 
was called a carnal commandment. But Jesus, that he might have 
the pre-eminence in all things, was made’a priest with an oath, and 
like Melchisedec abideth forever; therefore, not like the dying sons 
of Aaron. ‘‘ Order is heaven's first law.’’ Christ must have been 
constituted a priest legalty or illegally. He was not introduced into 


24 

the office clandestinely. Now, if our objectors will shew us the law, 
and the order by which Melchisedec was installed into the priestly 
office; how and when it was done; we will receive that as the rule of 
Christ’s inauguration. God’s word cannot conflict in any instance, 
and it declares that it behoved him in all things to be made like unto 
his brethren of the seed of Abraham; Melchisedec was not of the seed 
of Abraham. 

We have already shewn that John could not legally administer 
christian ordinances. He came to close up the Jewish dispensation 
with all its ceremonies, and thus to prepare the way for the Messi- 
ah’s reign on earth. Hence his popular and extensive baptism, not 
only referred to Jewish ceremonies, but pointed to the christian ordi- 
nance of baptism, that the minds of the prejudiced Jews might be the 
better prepared to receive it. 

It was no doubt the design of Jesus Christ, in his wisdom and 
mercy, that the Jewish dispensation, consisting of types and shad- 
ows, should pass away as the shades of night before the rising sun, 
without noise or disorder. Although he perfectly fulfilled all the re- 
quisitions of the law, so that the most fastidious Jew could ‘ find in 
him no fault at all,”” yet it was done so as to conciliate and harmon- 
ize their passions and prejudices, while he paved the way for gospel 
ordinances, more plain and simple in their nature, and more express» 
ive in theirimport. Jew and gentile may now meet on honourable 
terms, and bury forever their prejudices and contentions, with their 
common Saviour, in the grave of simplicity andself-denial. ‘* Oh 
the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! 
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.” 

By those who believe that immersion is the only correct mode of 
administering the ordinance of baptism, the case of the eunuch, re- 
lated Acts vill. 38, 39, is considered as conclusive. 

There is, however, no evidence to prove that the eunuch was im- 
mersed, stronger than there exists to prove the immersion of our Sa- 
vior; it has been already satisfactorily proven that he could not have 
been legally immersed. ‘The eunuch was travelling in his chariot, 
which forbids the idea that he had any vessel with him to contain wa- 
ter; that Philip had, is still more improbable; it is therefore reasonable 
to suppose that they were compelled to go down to the water. For. 
the strength of the phraseology of the sentence, which relates the 
fact, see page 17. 

That there was a convenient place at hand to immerse the eunuch; or 
that each ofthem hada change of apparel with them; that they changed 
their apparel on the high way; or that they continued to wear their 
wet clothes, is, to say the least, extremely improbable. Certain we 
are, that it would not happen once in one hundred instances in this 
country, which is much better watered than Judea, that after meeting — 
and conversing with a traveller for a few minutes, there would be 
found at hand a convenient place to be immersed in water, 

And must we take all those improbabilities and inconsistencies, for _ 
infallible proof that the eunuch was immersed, because it is said the - 
went down into, and came up out of the water; when even our learn- 


x 25 
ed friends are daily in the practice of pressing their neighbours to 
come into the fire, whilst they only mean that they shall come fo i? 

Another argument to prove that immersion is the only legal mode 
of administering the ordinance of baptism, is founded on what is said 
Rom. vi. 4, and Col. il. 11, 12, where we are represented as being 
buried with Christ in baptism. Hence it is supposed that baptism 
is an emblem or representation of the Saviour’s burial and resurrec- 
tion. 

All will readily admit, that when gospel ordinances are figurative, 
they represent God’s love and mercy, and not his angry judgments. 
Now, we think that immersion in water, more strikingly represents 
the fate of the wicked ante-deluvians, and Pharach’s host, than the 
burial and resurrection of one who was buried in a sepulchre- hewn 
out of a solid rock, and raised by the power of God in great glory. 
Is not sprinkling a more beautiful and striking emblem of God’s love 
and mercy to fallen man than immersion? See him sprinkle the earth 
to refresh and render it fruitful, that the sons of men may be saved 
from death, and refreshed and comforted while passing through this 
evil world. See him immerse the antideluvians and proud Egyptians, 
in his great displeasure for their iniquity; and then say, is the em- 
blem or representation an appropriate one—one that becomes the 
wisdom and perfection of Almighty God? A moment’s reflection 
must convince every impartial person, that Christ’s burial and resur- 
rection, was never intended to be represented by immersion. 

There is very little resemblance between buryinga man, and plung- 
ing one under the water, and raising him up again hastily. Burying 
means to conceal. Christ was in this respect buried; he was the King 
of Heaven, the Lord of life and glory; and yet he appeared on earth as 
man—as a servant. Thus it may be correctly said that he was buried 
or concealed from the sight of mortals, even while he walked before 
theireyes. He was buried in the deep valley of poverty and self-de- 
nial; and we who profess to be his followers, must be buried with 
him in that cold, unfrequented and unfashionable valley of self-denial 
and humility, or we shall never reign with him in heaven. Baptism 
introduces us into Christ’s kingdom on earth, and by an unassuming, 
humble, holy, deeply mortified life, we are hid, or concealed, or bu- 
ried with our Divine Master. St. Paul says, ‘* Knowing that this our 
old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroy- 
ed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is 
freed from sin.”” Rom. vi. 6, 7. Again, ‘“‘ For ye are dead, and 
your life is hid with Christ in God.’ Col. iii. 3. The amount is, 
we are dead to sin, and buried, or ‘‘ hid’’ or concealed from the eyes 
of ignorant man. Christ was buried, hid, concealed in his character 
from the observation of mortals—‘ As he is inthis world so are we.” 

ut we are risen with our Saviour in the sight of God, from our 

heathen degradation (by baptism) and from our sinful pollutions, 

ar the regenerating influence of the Holy Ghost, and should 
therefore walk in newness of life. 

Thus spiritual christians are not only buried with Christ, but with 

4 


26 

him they are also dead; dead to sin—to the opinions—the frowns or 
smiles of dying mortals on earth—dead to this delusive world, with 
all its pleasing and alluring charms. Yes, we are, or should be, 
‘* crucified with Christ.”’ Itis, however, much more pleasing to our 
fallen nature, to be buried under the water for a moment, than to be 
dead and buried with Christ through life; which it is clearly intima- 
ted in the above passages we must be. Of those who are thus spir- 
itually and really buried with Christ, it is said, ‘‘ when Christ who 
is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” 
Col. iii. 4. Happy for those who are willing to be buried from the 
eye of mortals—to be little and unknown among men, until Jesus 
shall appear in the clouds with power and great glory. 

The above view of this subject is consistent with the whole tenor 
of the gospel, (self-denial,) and beautifully illustrates the Christian’s 
character and condition in this life, But water burial with Christ, is 
an idea which explains no principle or precept of the gospel, and 
one which (as far as we can judge) has nothing wise or beneficial 
connected with it; therefore, it cannot be from God. 

On examination of all the passages in the new testament, where 
it is believed by many, that immersion is clearly and incontestibly 
proven, we find that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that one 
individual was ever immersed by John, or the apostles; but on the 
contrary, there is every reason to believe that immersion never was 
practised by them in one instance. 

We come now to notice some cases of baptism recorded in the 

new testament, where rationally speaking it could not have been ad- 
ministered by immersion. 

On the day of penteeost, the multitude assembled promiscuously; 
they heard the. word preached—were converted to God; and the same 
day there were three thousand added to the church, and baptized. 
The only water course contiguous to Jerusalem, where this memora- 
ble event transpired, is the brook Cedron. Historians inform us that 
it is a small rivulet, generally dry except in winter. Harmer ob- 
serves—‘‘ It may have frequently appeared strange to many readers, 
that all the travellers they have consulted, have found the Kidron dry: 
but it is tobe remembered that those who have published such jour- 
nals, were not in the Holy Land in winter.” -e. 

The Cedron is represented by Calmet and others, as a stream 
which rises near Jerusalem and falls into the Dead Sea; being entire- 
ly dry, except during the rainy seasons; and then its waters are dark 
and turbid, as it collects all the wash from the neighboring hills— 
that when it is swelled by rains, it flows with great rapidity. It is 
rationally impossible that a little brook generally dry except in the 
rainy seasons, and when raised by the fall of rains, flows with great 
velocity, could have afforded facilities for immersing three thousand 
persons in part of a day. And if there were any reservoirs of water 
in the city, they were all under the immediate controul of those men 
who had condemned and crucified Christ, and despised his follow- 
ers. 


The company came together composed of strangers and foreigners 


27 

as well as citizens of Jerusalem and its vicinity; they could have had 
no idea of what would occur; under such circumstances it is not rea~ 
sonable to suppose that they were provided with a change of wearing 
apparel; and to have immersed three thousand persons—men and 
women, indiscriminately, without a change of clothes, would have 
been a very indelicate spectacle for their enemies, or even their 
friends to behold. My faith is not strong enough to believe they 
were immersed, neither is my reasoning powers sufficiently acute-to 
devise any plan by which they could have been, according to the 
circumstances, so far as they have been disclosed to us, under 
which the administrators and subjects were placed. 

It is extremely improbable, and to say the least of it, altogether 
unreasonable to suppose, that the Philippian jailor and all his 
household were baptized by immersion. Considering all the cir- 
cumstances, itis not reasonable to suppose that St. Paul left the 
jail from the time he was placed there until he was honorably ac- 
quitted and discharged. He was thrust into the inner prison, and 
his feet made fast in the stocks. When the jailor saw the power 
of God displayed at the midnight hour, he sprang in trembling, and 
brought Paul out—itis fairly presumed into the outer apartment, or 
the debtor’s room. Butto suppose that he was taken out of the 
prison, or went out in search of a convenient place to immerse 
the jailor and his family, and then ran back again, is at least unrea- 
sonable and impropable. 

Were we, however, for argument’s sake, to admit the fact, it 
would indubitably prove that an immediate attendance to the ordi- 
nance was more necessary then, thanit is now considered by its 
most zealous advocates. In this country, which is much better 
supplied with streams of water than the land of Judea, it frequently 
happens, necessarily, that days and wecks, and even months, inter- 
vene between the time of conversation and immersion. In the new 
testament, there is not one instance recorded where the ordinance 
was delayed for oneday after conversion. Reader, do you really 
believe that the apostles always preached convenient to some river, 
or lake, or pond of water, where their converts could be imme- 
diately immersed? . In Damascus Paulimmediately arose and was 
baptized; not one word about going out of the town to ariver or 
lake to be immersed. 

When Cornelius and his friends were converted to God, and 
had received the Holy Ghost, Peter said, ‘‘can any man forbid 
water.’’ He does not say can any man preventus from going to 
the water tobe immersed. 

These circumstances alone are strong and conclusive evidence 
that the apostles did not baptized by immersion. 

It is not possible that the Israelites in passing over the Red sea 
could have been immersed. Respecting this circumstance, Paul 
says—‘‘Moreover brethren I would not have you ignorant, how 
that our Fathers were under the cloud, and were all baptized unto 
Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”” 1 Cor. x.1,2. St. Paul une- 
quivocally declares that they were baptized, and Moses positively 


28 

says that they all passed over ondry ground. Exod. xiv. 16, 22, 29. 
Some learned menof the present day have endeavored to prove 
that the Israelites were immersed! What will not sectarian pre- 
judice do, or rather attempt to do? Surely no man in existence, 
under the influence of reason and common sense, can believe that an 
individual, orcompany of men, ever were, or ever can be immersed 
on dry ground. 

There is an expressive prophecy relative to the Israelites, which 
has not yet been fulfiled. It points directly to the gospel dispen- 
sation; and when that peculiar people shall receive Jesus Christ as 
their Redeemer and King, they will fully comprehend its import. 

“For I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean 
from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you.” 
Ezek. xxxvi, 24, 25. 

God will elevate them out of their Jewish kingdom, which only 
consisted of types and shadows, and has been long since broken to 
pieces; and he will introduce them into the light and glory of 
Christ’s gospel kingdom on earth. He will deliver them from their 
sectarian prejudices, and their moral pollutions; and as an evidence 
of their separation from theiridols and prejudices, and as an emblem 
of the white robe of righteousness with which they shall be clothed— 
their purity of heart—He will baptize, or sprinkle clean water upon 
them. 

Isaiah, taking a more enlarged view of the gospel dispensation, 
and the Redeemer’s reign on earth, says, ‘‘So shall he sprinkle 
many nations.’’ Is. lii. 15. 

The Lord in mercy sprinkles the earth to make it fruitful, and to 
revive and comfort all who dwell therein. Why should he not 
sprinkle the church, and pour his spirit upon her. that she may be 
rendered fruitful; and also revived and comforted? 

There is a beautiful and intimate connection between the volume 
of nature aud the book of revelation; between the work of creation 
and the work of redemption. It must. necessarily be so—they are 
both the production of the same hand. 

The writings of any celebrated author can generally be recog-_ 
nized by the language and style of the composition. A man’s 
hand-writing ean be identified with almost as much certainty as the 
features of his face. Almighty God, who is immutable in his char- 
acter, and glorious in all his perfections, with whom there is no 
variableness—neither shadow of turning—immersed the world in 
water in his great displeasure, and for the wickedness of the people. 
He immersed Pharoah and his host, and they were all destroyed. 
The same God sprinkles the earth in infinite mercy and love to the 
human family. 

He sprinkles the flowers, and they bloom in incomparable beauty. 
He sprinkles the grass and it springs up luxuriantly for the benefit 
oi the beasts of the field, and the herds of the stall, He sprinkles 
the cultivated fields, and they produce a bountiful supply for the 
wants and comforts of the dependant children of men, 

There isa beauty, consistency, uniformity and harmony in all 


29 
the works of the divine hand, which delight and charm the en- 
lightened; purified and contemplative mind; and constrain dying 
mortals to love and adore their Great Creator, and merciful Re- 
deemer. But where there is discord and incongruity in the prac- 
tice or theory ofany system, natural, mgral, or spiritual, it must be 
imputed to the erring mind, and bungling hand of fallen man. 

The gospel is wisely and mercifully adapted to the circumstances 
and condition of the whole human family; and as God is its author, 
none of its requisitions are oppressive or unreasonable; which can- 
not be said; if immersion is the only correct mode of administering 
the ordinance of baptism. 

Would it be reasonable or merciful to compel the natives of Ice- 
land, and the high northern latitudes, where their water is locked up 
in ice one half the year, to be immersed? 

Suppose another case, which frequently occurs under our own ob- 
servation; aman on a sick and dying bed repents and is happily con- 
verted to God; but he cannot comply with a positive injunction or 
ordinance of that Merciful Being who has pardoned his sins at such 
an unseasonbale period. ‘The supposition is neither reasonable nor 
consistent with the character of Him who has proclaimed his name 
to be—‘ The Lord, the Lord God merciful and gracious, long suffer- 
ing, and abundant in goodness and truth.” 

Gospel blessings are designed to flow as well in winter as in sum- 
mer. Would it be merciful and lenient in our Divine Master to force 
his ministering servants down into the water every day, (for they 
should have daily seals to their ministry) through the cold icy season 
of winter, even in our own temperate climate? It may safely be said, no; 
he would not impose such a severe task upon his servants without 
assigning some highly important reason for doing so; this he has not 
done; nor has it been pointed out by any of the advocates for exclu- 
sive immersion. 

His first ministers were itinerant men, travelling generally on foot, 
and were commanded not to take two coats: that they should have 
been compelled to wear wet clothes constantly, or be dependant on 
others for a change, and then wait until they were dried and change 
back again, is altogether unreasonable, and a circumstance we hear 
nothing of in the new testament. 

The necessary conclusion t herefore is, that ese immersion, 
is neither reasonable, nor merciful, nor scriptural. 

In conclusion, we will remark, that our children are entitled to a 
place in their Redeemer’s kingdom on earth, from the highest author- 
ity; that baptism alone can give them a legal title to that privilege 
and blessing—That to sprinkle or pour the water on the subject, is a 
rational and scriptural mode of administering that ordinance; but im- 
mersion is no where forbidden in God’s word; consequently we be- 
lieve it to be innocent and correct for those who prefer it, as the 
mode cannot change the character of the ordinance; and God’s word 
expressly says, “let every man be fully pormgeed in his own mind,” 
And without charity we are nothing. 


30 
CONCLUSION. 


THE SUBSTANCE OF A SUPPOSED CONVERSATION. 
* 

B. Why do you sprinkle, or as you term it, baptize little children? 

P. Because we are commanded to ‘* go and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them,” &c. Children compose a large and interesting part of 
all nations; it would therefore be inconsistent. and partial to place the 
seal of God’s people on the parents, and suffer their children to run 
like the wild animals of the forest. 

B. That authority is not sufficient. I must have “a thus saith the 
Lord,” for alll do. Where are you commanded to baptize children? 

P. Where do you find ‘‘a thus saith the Lord’’ for administering 
the sacrament to females?’ Where is polygamy forbidden? 

B. These things may be rationally inferred from God’s word. 

P. Then you can reason from inference when it answers your pur- 
pose! This is quite convenient. Christ says, that children are to 
be included among the subjects of his kingdom on earth; but in con- 
sequence of their fallen state, they are naturally aliens and foreign- 
ers, and cannot be legally introduced into his kingdom on earth, but 
by baptism; therefore, they must be baptized. 

B. Thisis wide of the mark. You must refer me to a plain com- 
mand for baptizing infants, or | must still believe it to be man’s in- 
vention. 

P. The King’s authority is sufficient—He says, ‘Suffer little 
children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
kingdom of God.” 

B. There is not a word about baptizing them. What kind of au- 
thority is that? 

P. You admit that children are all born aliens and foreigners; con- 
sequently, far from God; nor is there any ceremony by which they 
can be legally brought to Christ, i. e. into his kingdom on earth, but 
baptism. ‘Then his permission to bring them, and his command to 
baptize all nations, is sufficient authority. 

B. We have no evidence to prove that Christ spoke of ‘‘ uncon- 
scious babes;’’ we presume he did not. Believers are called children. 

P. St. Luke says, they were infants. St. Mark says, “he took 
them up in his arms.’”’ Nor do we believe that his disciples would 
have forbidden believers to come unto him. ‘This is better evidence 
than you can adduce to prove that polygamy is wrong, and yet you 
would expel a member from your church for marrying two wives.— 
Why are you more oppose to children than adults? 

B. Your practice of introducing children into the church, is ineon- 
sistent, unauthorized, and ruinous to the best interest of the church. 

P. We do not introduce them into the church, but into Christ’s 
kingdom on earth, where he himself has placed them. 

B.. What is the difference between Christ’s kingdom on earth, and 
his church? Are they not different names to express the same thing? 

P. Certainly not. Every person or child in the United States, 


31 

legally introduced, or born therein, is acitizen of our favoured coun- 
try, and must be protected by the laws of the land. But every citi- 
zen does not hold an office of profit or honour, or compose part of 
those bodies, who make and administer our laws; yet those distin- 
guished characters are always taken from among our legal citizens. — 
Foreigners, or aliens, or heathens, have no claim to those privileges. 
Thus our children are legally introduced into Christ’s kingdom on 
earth; their alienated, degraded character is washed away by baptism, 
and being taught, or instructed in all the customs and laws of his 
kingdom, they are prepared to make more useful and honorable mem- 
bers of his church. 

B. Your theory is imposing; but it is flimsy. Baptism can do 
your children no good. Suppose you baptize one of your children 
and leave another unbaptized; would there be any difference between 
them? They look, and fare alike, and are both equally dear to you. 

P. You have a brother who does not profess religion; he is there- 
fore, a child of the devil; you are a Christian—a child of God; now 
there must be a greater difference between you and your brother in 
the sight of God, than there is between two persons, one white snd 
the other black; yet there is no difference in your appearance; you. 
fare alike, and are alike honoured by men. God seeth not as man 
seeth. ‘There is also a difference in the eye of heaven between the 
baptized and the unbaptized child; though the offence will not lie a- 
gainst the child; but the negligent parent. 

B. Your head is full of strange notions. 

P. Every judicious farmer places his mark on all his flock; the 
little ones especially. The old or grown animals are never marked, 
except when he purchases from some other fold. Does not our great 
Shepherd regard his flock with as much solicitude as the farmer re- 
gards his cattle or sheep? When any part of the rich man’s flock, 
bearing his mark, strays away, and can find nothing to eat, they may 
return to their master’s erib, and find an abundant supply of food, 
while the sheep bearing no mark, or some neighbour’s crop, ean have 
no claim to this good man’s bounty. Although itis a privilege to 
bear a wealthy and good man’s mark, yet it does not prevent the 
flock, old or young, from straying away frgm his fold, and pcrishing 
by famine; neither does it always secure them from the pilfering 
hand of the robber. 

Whose, or what mark do your unbaptized children bear? To 
what kingdom do they belong? Are they Jews, or Mahomedans, or 
Christians? or have they no name or identity of character among men? 
Are they suspended between heaven and earth, as if they were un- 
worthy of either? ; 

B. You are too visionary altogether. Ihave no idea of your cir- 
cuitous queries. I will lay these aside, and come boldly to the point, 
and prove from new testament authority, that nothing is baptism but 
immersion, and that believers are the only proper subjects to receive 
that ordinance. ‘This is a scriptural and orthodox view of the sub- 


ject. This doctrine is gaining ground daily. Some are rising up 


from other churches, and claiming immersion at our hands. Great 


32 
is truth, and it must prevail—may you and I be governed by its dic- 
tates. Seeing that there is no probability that either of us will be 
convinced by the other, or change our sentiments, I must. bid you 
adieu. 

P. I would have been much gratified, if our conversation could 
have turned for a few moments on the mode of administering the or- 
dinance of baptism; but as you have laid your foundation on the cor- 
ner stone of prejudice, by affirming that your opinion is orthodox, 
and cannot be changed, and have concluded that my foundation is 
too firm to be moved; or you may judge that my prejudices are as 
strong as your own, I must respond, adieu. 

B. If you will reason logically and candidly, and not ask so many 
curious questions, I will see you again to-morrow, by divine permis- 
sion, and convince you in a few moments that you are wrong. 

P, I will be glad to see you. Rest assured, that I shall endeavor 
to be governed by reason and revelation. : 

B. Good morning, friend P. I hope your mind is more rational 
to-day than it was yesterday. 

P. Iam glad to see you. As you have unequivocally asserted, 
that nothing is baptism but immersion, where do you think the 3,000 
were immersed on the day of pentecost? 'The only water course near 
to Jerusalem, is the brook Cedron, which we are informed is gene- 
rally dry, except in the rainy seasons. Itthen flows with great velo- 
city, receiving and carrying off all the filth about the city. 

B. 'There were in Jerusalem the pools Siloam and Bethesda, and 
no doubt many other public baths also. 

P. Although you demand ‘a thus saith the Lord’ for baptizing in- 
fants, I will not be so uncharitable with you—I will be satisfied with 
rational inference. You do not pretend to say that they could have 
been immersed in the Cedron; nor could the apostles have access to 
the public pools, baths, &ce.—they were all under the control of their 
enemies. ( 

B. It is presumable that the excitement and power displayed on 
that occasion were so great, that all opposition was forgotten, and 
even the rulers of the Jews were awed into silence, and cheerfully 
submitted to the requisitions of the apostles. 

P. Would not such a circumstance have been mentioned; particu- 
larly as the disciples were afew days afterwards publicly beaten by 
the command of the Jewish autborities? 

B. We are called on to believe facts, without inquiring into the 
whys and wherefores. , 

P. IT admit the importance of faith; but God himself has not called 
on us to believe without evidence. Do you believe that the 3,000 
changed their dress after they were baptized? or did they remain in 
their wet clothes? Do you think they all came prepared for the oc- 
casion with a change Of raiment? 

B. The scripture gives us no information on the subject; there- 
fore, we have no right to inquire into such little matters. 

P. In every instance recorded in the new testament, baptism is’ ad- 
ministered immediately after conversion—as soon as the individuals’ 


33 
hearts are changed by the power of God, their condition is changed 
_by baptism. Do you believe that the apostles always preached near 
to some river or lake, where their converts could be immersed? In. 
Damascus—in the Phillipian jail—at Cornelius’s house, &e. Do 
you really believe that those and the like places were always furnish- 
- ed with. conveniences for immersing people in water? 

B. I am surprised at your wild notions: they have nothing to do 
with the subject. We can know nothing about those unimportant 
things. ‘The early converts to christianity were all immersed: this is 
enough for us to know. 

P. Do you not think that there would have been something said 
about special baptizings, suitable places, change of apparel, &c., if 
nothing but immersion was practised by the apostles? 

B. I suppose not. ‘They have said nothing respecting those par- 
ticulars; neither should we disturb our minds aboutthem., John bap- 
tized in Jordan, and at Enon, because there was much water there. 
Does not this prove incontrovertibly, that he immersed those whom 
he baptized? 

P. Certainly not. John baptized immense multitudes of people 

in the wilderness. In such placés there are no houses. Do you be- 
lieve that those crowds, composed of men and women, changed their 
clothes in presence of each other? or did they wear their wet apparel 
until they returned from the wilderness? or were they immersed, as 
some were in the following centuries, i. e. naked? 

B. Your unconquerable prejudice against exclusive immersion, and 
your predilection for ‘ baby sprinkling’ leads you into wild and ab- 
surd notions respecting the ‘imposing ordinance of immersion.’ 

P. Did not John say that he baptized with water, but that Christ 
would baptize with the Holy Ghost? 

B. He does make such a declaration. 

P. Which of those two do you suppose is the most important? 

B. The baptism of the Holy Ghost no doubt. 

P. Must not the greater uniformly govern the lesser? Is it not ne- 

- cessary that the shadow and the substance should perfectly corres- 
pond? 

B. It is reasonable; and generally it is the case. 

P. Did not Christ baptize the 3,000 on the day of hantenbat, by 
pouring his spirit on them? 

B. True, he did so; but have not several learned and wise men 
proven that the Holy Ghost was poured out so copiously on that oc- 
casion, that they were all immersed in its overwhelming influence? 

P. Then is the dispute settled. There is no difference between 
us, except that you require more water for the purpose than we gen- 
erally use. However great the effusion, and overwhelming the in- 
fluence of the Holy Ghost may have been on the day of pentecost, 
yet was it poured on the people. Why should we contend any longer 
about shadows, and fall out by the way about nothing? We admit 
immersion to be a valid mode of baptism, and you say that immersion 
may be performed by pouring. Were we to use more water, and 

v . 


34 
pour it more profusely on those whom we baptize, would you then: 
suffer us to approach our Father’s table with you? 

B. I would be glad to see the different branches of the church unt- 
ted, and live together i in love and harmony; but a positive rule in our 
church debars all who have not been regularly immersed, from com- 
muning with us. We must submit to the powers that be. 

P. Please to shew me the particular rules, doctrine and diseipline 
of your church. 

B. Here they are. The bible is our discipline: you can examine 
it at your leisure. é 

P. So say the Antinomians, and moderate Calvinists, as well as 
the Armenians, Unitarians and Universalists, and every other denom- 
ination, say that the bible is the rule of their faith—itis their standard. 
I suppose, however, you only mean to say, that your opinion of the 
doctrine of the bible, forms the discipline of your church. 

B. Yes. Without charity we are nothing; therefore we suffer all 
our members to be fully persuaded in their own mind, We have no 
Popes or Bishops in our church. 

P. And do you regard the opinion of every individual in your 
church as orthodox and infallible, and condemn all others by exclud- 
ing them from their Father’s table? Is this your charity? 

‘B. I would rather see that rule changed; but that which cannot be 
healed must be endured. We are digressing. 

P. I thank you for the rebuke. We will return to to the subject. 

B. What have you to say of Christ’s s baptism! You do not think, or 
pretend to say that he was not immersed? 

P. I have recently seen a pamphlet published by ———, on the 
rights and privileges of children; the author clearly proves that Christ 
was notimmersed, pp. 21, 22, 23. I consider his argument conclu- 
sive. 

B. [have seen and examined the pamphlet myself; but my yy 
ion is very different from your's. 

P. Can you by fair reasoning refute his arguments? 

B. I consider them visionary and’ heterodox, He asserts that 
Christ was legally constituted a priest when he was baptized, which 
every one knows to be absurd and unfounded, 

P. He has given evidence to prove that fact which would be re- 
ceived in any court of justice in the christian world. His argument, 
in my opinion, is unanswerable, 

B. He blends the law and the gospel—the old oe the new testa- 
ment together. The gospel does not require the law of Moses to prop 
itup. What do you think of the eunuch’s baptism? He went down. 
into, and came up out of the water. Surely you will not say that he 
was not immersed. 

P. Nothing definite can be proven from the phraseology of a. 
sentence. ‘The inscription placed over our Lord’s head when he was 
crucified, is differently related by each of the Evangelists. 

B. That was written in Latin, and Greek, and Hebrew. . 

P. The gospels were originally written in Greek; we should not, 
therefore, place an undue stress upon the phraseology of our trans- 


i 


35 
lation. The substance is what we should desire. It is said that 


Christ went up into the mountain. Do you believe he was immers- 
‘ed in the ground? 


B. Certainly not; such an idea would be unreasonable and absurd. 
P. And is it reasonable to suppose, that a rich man riding ina 


chariot, would, without enquiry or objection, allow himself to be 


immersed in water on the high-way, when he must continue to wear 
his wet clothes, or change them by the way-side? . 

B. Such unnatural suppositions is descending from the dignity of 
the gospel. ‘The eunuck was immersed—no rational man can doubt 
of the fact. ; 

P. Within eight or ten verses of the passage which the eunuch 
was reading, the following sentence is written—‘‘So shall he sprinkle 
many nations.”’ Is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have 
enquired what that declaration meant, before he was immersed? 

B. He was notso inquisitive as you are I expect. 

P. I will thank you to inform me what that declaration means? 

B. Ido not know; neither is it important that I[should. The old 
testament is done away. : 

P. Why then do you read and preach from passages contained in it? 

B. Because it is God’s word, and contains predictions which have 
not yet all been fulfilled. 

P. The text under consideration points to the gospel dispensation. 
Is there one passage in the old or new testament which says—TI will 
dip, or plunge, or immerse all nations, or even one individual? 

B. Lam suprised at the force of prejudice! Please to inform me 
how we can be buried with Christ in baptism, if we are not to be im- 
mersed in water. 

P. Allow me to refer you to the pamphlet adverted to pp. 24, 25, 
where this point is satisfactorily illustrated. Have you read it? 

B. I have; but I do not believe the author’s visionary ideas, 

P. Can you refute, and disprove his arguments? 

B. The word of God affords a complete refutation of his notions. 
God’s word is plain on the subject, and requires no comment. 

P. How unfortunate that every one cannot see with your eyes; if 
they could, it would at once harmonize the whole christian world. 
St. Paul says, that the Israelites were all baptized unto Moses in the 
cloud, &c., and Moses expressly declares that they all passed over on 
dry ground. Do you believe that they were immersed? 

B. Certainly they were. Several learned men, whose opinions 
we cannot doubt, have proven that they were immersed on that occa- 
sion. 

P. Learning is an invaluable blessing; but I have never before 
knownits illimitable power. A mian by the charm of his eloquence 
and learning can prove that an individual or company of men may be 
immersed in water on dry ground!! I fear that such learning will 
never be a very great blessing to the human family. 

B. The learned and wise divines of high standing in the church, 
almost unanimously believe that the Greek word baptizo means im- 


36 


mersion and nothing else, You will not I hope resist such conelu- 


sive evidence in favour of orthodox principles, My 


P. Pardon me—lI cannot receive your declaration; the contrary is 


the fact. A large majority, nay, nearly all the divines of extensive 
learning, for many centuries past, have, believed just the contrary. 

B. Please to mention their names. 

P. I include every pedo-baptist divine now living, and all who 
have lived since the introduction of the gospel on earth, which will 
embrace at least nine-tenths of the whole number of those who have 


been men of extensive learning. If they believe one thing and prac- 


tice another, then are they down-right hypocrites and wilful deceiv- 
ers. Youcannot yourself think this of them. 

B. I believe they have not-given their conscience fair play. 

P. Your sentiments are at least uncharitable. Under your view 
of the subject, suppose a minister of a delicate constitution was com- 


pelieg to go into the water and baptize forty or fifty persons every | 


day during the cold freezing weather which we have experienced for 
the two past winters; would it be an easy yoke and light burder.? 


B. So then, that is the ground of your objection to immersion; ~ 


you are afraid of the cross. You have forgotten that the cross is the 
way to the crown. 

P. If we deny ourselves any excess in food or raimenty and give it 
to the poor, Christ has promised to reward us in heaven for Suen pri- 
vations. But what can we gain for the cause of God, or for others, 
or for ourselves, by standing in the freezing water for hours together? 
Poor fallen man does not impose penance on his children, or order 
them to act without motive or benefit. 

B. You are too curious and inquisitive. It is no doubt offensive 
to God. 

P If immersion is the only mode of administering the ordinance 
of baptism, it would not only be a heavy yoke during the winter sea- 
son in our own climate, but in the high northern latitudes it would be 
oppressive. In many eases which may occur in all countries, it 
would not only be burdensome, but it would be impracticable. Many 
repent and are pardoned on a dying bed; but they cannot be immers- 
ed. ‘This alone is strong presumptive evidence that it is not the 
mandate of heaven. 


B. I see there is no hope of reclaiming you from your delusions. — 


‘Iam sorry fer you. I esteem you as a neighbour and a friend; but 
as Lia your mind is unfortunately and desperately distem- 
pere 

P. I really expected that you had better arguments to support your 
cause. If you will pray more, and read more, and reflect more, I 
have no doubt but in future, you will be enabled to exercise more 
charity for those who differ Vee you in sentiment, even on the sub- 
ject of baptism. 


